Lee 1
A regency is a time period when a country is ruled by a temporary king or queen, because the monarch is not present, too young, or is incapacitated at the time. A regent, (the person taking the king/queen’s power) may also be put in place if the royal blood line has died out. In 1788, the King of Britain fell ill to an unknown disease at the time, currently known as porphyria. He had mild bouts of illness early in his reign but it significantly and noticeably deteriorated in the 1788. George III was faced with stress, excessive sweating, unnatural blistering, severe mental confusion and headaches. During this time period, the government believed that he was mad due to his actions. This is where the King got his nickname “The Mad King”. If the King was truly mad, regency would definitely be necessary. The Regency Crisis truly deserved its name due to the madness of the King, political parties, and the British Legal system during this time.
The King’s madness certainly started to be noticed in the 1788 during his reign. During this time there were two political parties. The Tories who were led by Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger who was the party in power, and the opposing party, the Whigs, who were led by Charles James Fox, who was also close friends with the Prince of Wales, the King’s eldest son. The sickness of the King brought out the parties personal gains and revealed what kind of people they were. The Prince and the Whigs saw the King’s madness and wanted to take the opportunity to make him the prince regent. This would ultimately put the Whigs to the primary party in power. Pitt saw this as a threat from the beginning. He desperately did not want to lose his position as Prime Minister. This proved that th...
... middle of paper ...
...nished and ready to be passed, George III had made a full recovery, just in time to stop the bill. This led the country into an even more crisis state due to George’s reckless spending. Due to Pitt stalling the debate just long enough, this led Britain to
Lee 4 the crisis of 1810. The King was declared permanently mad in 1810. The parliament wasted no time and immediately passed the bill of regency and appointed the Prince of Wales as Prince Regent. It is evident that the Regency Crisis deserved the word crisis because of the madness of George III. His madness revealed a hole in the British legal system, where the Lord Commissioners had to break the law of requiring the King’s consent in order to approve of any legal documents. The Tories, led by, Prime Minister Pitt, proved to have stalled regency to the Prince of Wales just long enough for the King’s recovery.
“Leslie Stephen described it (the eighteenth century) as ‘the century of cold common sense and growing toleration and of steady social and industrial improvement.’” Before the Enlightenment, the belief of the Divine Right of Kings was central to every nation. Kings were believed to be chosen by God and answerable to the divine alone, citizens could not question their King because in theory they would be questioning God. During the eighteenth century there was a shift in the public opinion of nobles and lords. Philosophes, or critics, began to openly object the way the government ran the people, even poking fun at the choices made. Kings were no longer feared. As people turned away from the restraints of government, a rise in individualism formed. ...
The eventual breakdown of severing relations between Charles I and Parliament gave way to a brutal and bloody English Civil War. However, the extent that Parliament was to blame for the collapse of cooperation between them and ultimately war, was arguably only to a moderate extent. This is because Parliament merely acted in defiance of King Charles I’s harsh personal rule, by implementing controlling legislation, attacking his ruthless advisors and encouraging public opinion against him. These actions however only proceeded Charles I’s personal abuse of his power, which first and foremost exacerbated public opinion against his rule. This was worsened
In England, political instability was due to the nobles (who advise the king in his decisions and fund the crown if needed) using Henry VI’s and the crown’s crippling debt for their own gains. An example of misguidance for Henry for the nobles’ gains, an example is Richard Duke
For example, the British were believed to have too much power. This involves the King of Great Britain, King George III. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations [unlawful seizures]...” (Doc 7). This was quoted from the The Declaration of Independence. Ensuing the Seven Years War, the British were in a great deal of debt. They were in desperate need of money. He created many acts including, The Stamp Act, The Quartering Act, and also The Proclamation of 1763. The Quartering Act forced the colonists to quarter the soldiers. The colonists were compelled to provide a living space and supplies for the British
The British started to crack after the next 2 years. Soldiers were being sent out with inadequate supplies, weapons and food. A new prime minister was elected shortly after who vowed to send his troops what they needed, his name was William Pitt. Soon...
For over their first 150 years of existence, the English colonists were largely allowed to govern themselves, separate from the king’s or parliament’s authority. All of this changed at the end of the French and Indian War. Struggling from the immense amount of debt accrued from defending the colonies and fighting the French, the new king, George III, deposed the old prime minister in favor of one that would be willing to place a tighter grip on the colonies. These attempts to consolidate control of the colonies with parliament would prove disastrous, with many of the events like the Stamp Act, the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Tea Party being remembered today. These events and others after the war directly led to the improbable union of the thirteen colonies in war against the tyranny of the greatest empire of the world.
France had to declare bankruptcy after the American Revolution--war and debt helped bring down the monarchy. King, in 1787, called the Estates General, an assembly of noblemen buried since 1614. Thus the Revolution becan with an aristocratic attempt to recapture the state. "Men born and live free and equal under the law." Not democratic, but constitutional. The King was not King of France, but King of the French!!
How far were the events in Scotland responsible for the failure of Charles I’s Personal Rule?
After the 7 years war, England was heavily in debt. This was the most that they’d ever been in debt in their history. Two years before the end of the war King George II died, and his grandson George III became king. King George III held the theory that to rule an empire you had to have a tight grip. “The colonies had always been the domain of the crown, administered by royally appointed officials. Parliament had seldom interfered—except to pass the Acts of Trade and Navigation, laws relating to finance, and laws prohibiting or limiting certain colonial manufactures. The attempt by parliament to raise money in the colonies by acts of Parliament, coupled with other restrictive legislation and administrative decisions, forced Americans, for the first time,...
One of the key factors that led to the civil war was the contrasting beliefs of King Charles and the parliament. The monarchy believed in the divine rights of kings, explained by Fisher (1994, p335) as a biblically-based belief that the king or queen's authority comes directly from God and that he is not subjected to the demands of the people. On the other hand, the parliament had a strong democratic stance and though they respected and recognized the king's authority, they were constantly desiring and fighting for more rights to power. Although climaxing at the reign of King Charles, their antagonism stretched for centuries long before his birth and much of the power that once belonged to the monarchy had shifted over to the parliament by the time he came into power.
John Wyclif and the people who followed him reflected how royal authority could be b...
The inflated opinion the French monarchy had about themselves and other nobles lent itself to how they contributed to and handled the economic downturn in France for centuries prior to the French Revolution. Forming the foundation of many of France’s financial issues, the monarchial system granted royals and the nobles who surrounded them the ability to feel as if they are intended to be superior to the rest of France, a mentality that would last until the French Revolution began. With this monarchial system, each king of France from 1610 to 1789 would contribute in both positive and negative ways, depending greatly on the Chief Ministers they appointed. [ADD]
Louis XIV (the fourteenth) was an absolute monarch. He was often called "the Sun King," and ruled over France. He devoted himself to helping France achieve economic, political, and cultural prominence. Many historians believe the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutely" mirrors Louis' reign. Louis XIV revoked the Edict on Nantes, changing the economy of France in one motion. By creating the city of Versailles and being a major patron of the arts, Louis was very influential on French culture. He made France go almost bankrupt from his costly wars and failures. Louis was very corrupt in his power, and it shown in all he did to change France; he got what he wanted, when he wanted it.
They said that not one official in power was corrupt, but that the whole system of government needed some change. Eventually, when the royal finances were expended in the 1780's, there began a time of greater criticism. This sparked the peasants notion of wanting change. Under the Old Regime in France, the king was the absolute monarch. Louis XIV had centralized power in the royal bureaucracy, the government departments which administered his policies. Together, Louis XIV and the bureaucracy worked to preserve royal authority and to maintain the social structure of the Old Regime.
During the reign of Charles I, the people of England were divided into two groups due to their opinions on how the country should be run: The Royalists, and the Parliamentarians. The Royalists were those people who supported Charles I and his successor, while the Parliamentarians were those who supported the idea that Parliament should have a larger role in government affairs. Milton was a Parliamentarian and was an outspoken enemy of Charles I, having written numerous essays and pamphlets regarding his ideas as to how the government should be run, and “In one very famous pamphlet, he actually defended Parliament's right to behead the king should the king be found inadequate.” Charles I was seen as a corrupt and incompetent ruler, and “the Parliamentarians were fed up with their king and wanted Parliament to play a more important role in English politics and government.” This belief was held because of the unethical and tyrannical behavior of ruler Charles I. During his reign, he violated the liberties of his people and acted with hypocrisy and a general disregard for his subjects. Examples of his abuse of power in...